Aristotle was not real

Aristotle didn't misinterpret Plato's work, he just disagreed.

disagreeing with Plato is misinterpreting him.

In the name of Christ, DELETE THIS

Even plato disagreed himself in his final days.

Who did write the Organon then?

Looks too complex to me to be mere forgeries.

Not to mention the books are in harmony to each other.

Of course this doesn't "prove" Aristotle was real, but i think a Roman forgery is unlikely.

The organon was compiled by Romans in like 50bc iirc, I don't see how it changes anything.
I'm sure cicero's clique was able to create a body of work harmonious in content. This obviously wasn't done by some idiot. My main point is that Aristotle's work was Roman and the works are a couple hundred years younger.

well you need to learn history then, Aristotle was a student of Plato in his academy and later on had his own academy called Lyceum.

OP is obviously aware of this and questions its validity.

Is Socartes even real? Or did Plato just make him up for purposes of his philosophy.

again you're probably not familiar with the concept of history, let me direct you to the library closest to your proximity, try to ask the libertarian for any general history books and Greek history in particular.

>Where are the sources?
The thread

well memed, my friend

well memed

Are any of us real?

Sokrates at least has Aristophanes

haha epic mememe

OP gives actual arguments. It's interesting to show Aristotle being part of the myth making around Alexander. Like his horse.

And not "myth" as in the contemporary "common misunderstanding" but myth as in an actual mythical figure. Making him Herakles as he already was often portrayed.

good one m8

It's the truth.

A lot of people have made very good cases for Socrates not existing and being an allegory/heroic literary figure.

People are always like "but that one play someone made to criticize Socrates" even though the play could just as easily be a criticism of an allegorical/heroic figure. Plato invented him.

Veeky Forums isnt real. It's just been the same two guys arguing back and forth across all boards for over a decade.
That's right Dave, the jig is up!

so, greeks aren't real.

Most of them are real, they just aren't the authors of much of the work attributed to them.

to be honest, i'm still gonna read them

DELET THIS

Aristophanes was in on the conspiracy.

The OP makes some good points, but sadly he is under the fundamental misconception of actually believing that the Romans existed, when, in fact, they're just an invention of the Italians to get claims on the whole Mediterranean.

"Muh 6.000.000 years of Imperium Romanorum. Muh oppression from evil Germanic invaders."
As anyone that isn't a sheeple knows, all the "evidence" of Romans existing are just artifacts planted later by the Italian race. """""Scientists""""" are paid by sneaky Italians to give positive results, or they're tortured to say that their evidence supports Rome existing. Sometimes they're even Italians or Italian-sympathizers themselves.
The supposedly Roman pillars you can see nowadays, for example, are actually Greek. The Latin language was invented in the 1800s. The scriptures are just forgeries. Gladii found in the ground were made with modern steel. Not even iron or bronze! They fucked up this hard!!
It's so obvious, but Italians have their hand in everything and can shut every dissenting opinion down.

Watch this 2 hour documentary to find out more: youtube.com/watch?v=DLzxrzFCyOs

How could Aristophanes' play be based on Plato's dialogues if Plato started writing years after Aristophanes' death, you delusional katapygon.

Actually, most history is fabricated during the reformation period in Europe. The Joseph Justus Scaliger version of history we have is a forgery. The monks of Europe have shaped and distorted history and most of the past was quite different than we imagine.

>Aristotle was invented to create a link between Alexander the Great and Plato, as to make Alexander a mythical philosopher king.
But Aristotle didn't even adhere to Plato's political thought.

Heroic character used to explain the fundamentals of philosophy was used by two different greeks at two different points in history.

>guys check out my totally cool theory that historians overlooked for 2000 years

>>>/hemlock/

Or Socrates was a commonly known character that had an existing "personality". Sherlock Holmes and the caricature of Hitler are two public domain characters with known "personalities".

Or Aristophanes and Plato were pals and philosophized. Plato had been philosophizing for some time before he wrote down his dialogues after all.

He doesn't need to, he just needs to have been taught by him. He can disagree in whatever ways suit the myth maker(s).

Fomenko is pretty on point.

You cannot prove that anyone you didnt personally witness was real. Plato wasn't real. George Washington wasn't real. Saladin wasn't real. Augustus want real. Sun Tzu wasn't real.

>You cannot prove that anyone you didnt personally witness was real.
How can you prove that someone you personally witnessed was real?

Maybe he was a hallucination?
Maybe you're dreaming.

I actually think about this a lot, that maybe I'm just a retard interacting witha chinese room

You're a funny guy user

I for one can appreciate a good ol shit post when there's some effort put into I don't know about you lads.

9/10.

Plato is a footnote to Plato.

>guys the earth is the centre of the universe, scientists have said so for thousands of years, it must be true

>Middle Eastern and African thought

WE

DAS RITE

You're making it seem like this is a one-way street.

Truth is if it wasn't for the muslims most works of greek scholars wouldn't exist nowadays.

Muslims scholars preserved them and (likely) edited them, too.

We can never, ever, ever be sure that what we are reading today was the same that was written down by the greeks, because we lost the originals.

Islamic scholars were influenced by greek thought and likely expanded on it.

Is this thread even real?

JUST Janus

unironically 10/10 post

>libertarian

I don't need snake memes though.

He was, Socrates wasn't.

...

>Islamic scholars were influenced by greek thought and likely expanded on it.

It goes much further than that. The thing is many ostensibly original works by Muslim scholars were arbitrarily attributed to Greek authors on no other basis than the fact that Muslim scholar also made some commentaries on said Greek authors.

Basically if you were a Muslim scholar and you cited Aristotle at some point you can be 100% sure any worthwhile works of your own you create will be attributed to Aristotle or a Greek influenced by Aristotle.

We

Isaac Newton also thought ancient history was altered by monks.

How do you explain him and his beliefs mentioned by Isocrates, Aristophon, and Amphis?

I hope you're meming. Muslim scholars weren't responsible for being the sole preserver any Greek writer. They wrote some interesting commentary on them that influenced European scholars, and drew influence from their works to create their own, but there wasn't a point where Greek text didn't survive besides by getting saved by Muslim hands. This is a Western-Latin centric viewpoint and meme who never bothered to go to Byzantine East, learn Greek, and read such works (which they, and multiple other sources, preserved). There's also fragments from antiquity for most of these writers -- some of them even mostly extant, and complex references from later writers in antiquity to previous others, that the theory that they were simply inventions by later European scholars is unviable. There's still fragments getting dig up today in more dry humidless places of the Hellenic sphere (like Libya, Egypt, Syria, Turkey) from a lot of said famous writers in antiquity.

Isaac Newton was a scientist, not an historian, so I'll disregard his opinion on the matter.

>pretending byzantines are people

You are a retard

wrong, read diogenes laertius' lives of philosophers

this is intriguing, you have any sources on that?

if not, can you expand on it at least?

>but there wasn't a point where Greek text didn't survive besides by getting saved by Muslim hands

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_of_Aristotle

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_of_the_Greek_Classics

It was the arabs, the byzantines and, to some extent, the franks, that preserved greek texts.

>this is intriguing, you have any sources on that?
>if not, can you expand on it at least?

No, I was just memeing.

If you want somebody to prove you wrong then write a paper and get peer reviewed.

diogenes made up the entirety of greek philosophy, as a prank

I stand firm to what I said. I didn't say Muslim scholars didn't help preserve it, I said they weren't the sole preservers of it.

Name one text that was completely missing from both sides in Europe until Muslim scholars introduced it. I'm waiting.